"No matter who says what, you should accept it with a smile and do your own work."--Mother Teresa (attributed)

8/19/05

Scam? Yo Momma!

Note: This was originally posted shortly after Jesse Lee Peterson's book was published, reposted in 2005, and now because of a fight between black customers and a Korean merchant in Dallas, Texas.

Scam? Yo Momma!During
the summer of 2002 I was an observer to a dispute between the Asian
owners of a Chinese takeout and some of their black customers in
Washington, D.C. The month-long boycott began when a local activist
accused a cook at a Chinese takeout of attempting to cook a piece of
chicken he had allegedly dropped on the floor.

Despite
the best efforts of human rights activist Dick Gregory, popular
talk-show host Joe Madison, and Rev. Walter Fauntroy, the protestors
were unable to coax any media to report on the protest. On some days
there were, by my unofficial count, as many as 100 people chanting songs
and marching. But one key person was missing: Rev. Jesse Jackson.

It
was important to the foot soldiers at the boycott that someone from the
media report on the incident. It was clear that they wanted someone
outside of the neighborhood to hear their complaint. The first few days I
was asked by protestors if I was a reporter from Fox News or USA-9. I
talked to everyone who approached me and did start acting like a
reporter, taking notes until I got threatened a few days later by one of
the angrier folks there. One woman, disappointed I was not with the
media, began to complain about the media. Her main point: NBC and the
Washington Post would be there if Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton showed
up.

A couple of days into the protest there was chatter
that the leaders of the boycott had been in contact with Jesse Jackson,
but that Jackson was headed to a different event (I believe it was the
beating of a young black man in Los Angeles). One of the protestors told
me: "See! Jesse ain't out for nobody but Jesse."

It
was the type of scene that black conservatives have denounced on many
occasions. Instead of focusing their energy on the local troubled
schools or other pressing community issues, the boycotters were heaping
their scorn on a small Chinese takeout. How likely is it that many of
the people out protesting have since shown up to a PTA meeting or gotten
involved with their local schools in other ways? After observing one of
the protests, I did some research about the local schools. There are
five of them in that particular ward. The one with the highest average
SAT score? 736. That is almost 300 points below the national average.

It is also the type of scene that ends up a footnote in Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson's book Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America.
Peterson is often referred to as "the other Jesse" or the "anti-Jesse
Jackson." He has gained those nicknames as a result of his many media
appearances denouncing Jackson and other civil rights leaders for
allegedly turning their backs on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.
That legacy, Peterson says, has been abandoned by hustlers and problem
profiteers who keep racial problems in the news so they make their
careers off the backs of blacks.

To further dramatize
the issue, Peterson holds an annual National Repudiation Day of Jesse
Jackson. Peterson says that he will hold the event until Jesse Jackson
"repents of his wrongs." I suspect that Peterson will be waiting a long
time, assuming that he outlives Jackson. The day of Repudiation sounds
like it would be great fun for anyone looking to denounce Jackson. But
Peterson takes it all too seriously.

There is probably a
lot of truth to what Peterson writes, especially about opportunistic
black leaders. But in reading Peterson's long rant about civil rights
leaders, I am reminded of Frederic Bastiat's statement that "the worst
thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked,
but to be ineptly defended."

Instead of putting forth a
serious case of what is wrong with Jesse Jackson and other blacks often
called leaders, Peterson goes for the easy shots. His style has made it
easy for opponents to mock him. It did not have to be that way,
considering Peterson's background. He was born into a "broken family in
the tiny town of Comer Hill, Alabama." He was raised by his grandmother
after his own mother abandoned him. He did not meet his father until he
was 13 years old. He began to use drugs as a teen and got on welfare
when he moved from Alabama to Los Angeles. As an adult he has worked in
urban areas helping youth and others to turn around their lives.

It
is, however, his career as a civil rights leader critic that has gotten
Peterson denounced as a sellout and Uncle Tom. The good reverend fights
fire with fire, writing an unnecessarily negative book with cartoonish
name-calling. He denounces the name calling, then engages in it for most
of the book. Occasional name-calling is fine, but not a substitute for
an argument. The cover of the book captures its essence.

Al
Sharpton is looking slightly befuddled. Louis Farrakhan looks strange.
Jesse Jackson has his mouth wide-open. And Maxine Waters, who isn't
particularly significant, is pictured although it is tough to call her
much of a leader. So she's in the background. But the main point is that
it is a personal diatribe in which personalities are more important
than ideas.

Peterson writes that black leaders are
"corrupt," "problem profiteers," "skillful manipulators," "true enemies
of black America," and "racial hucksters" who use their "racist minions"
to shakedown corporations and cower whites into submission. Black
pastors and preachers simply "parrot" Rev. Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton,
"spreading racial hatred through their sermons." At times Rev. Peterson
seems to be playing a game trying to squeeze many negative adjectives
into sentences about the people he does not like. On one page Rev. Louis
Farrakhan is a "racist and anti-American hatemonger." On others,
Farrakhan is "one of the most dangerous men in the nation" who is a
"world-class racist." On top of that, he denounces Farrakhan as an
"American Hitler."

Peterson's hyperbole leads him to
dismiss Nelson Mandela as a "communist-socialist pig." Search my blog
and you'll see that I have had critical things to say about Mandela and
the other leaders Peterson rails against. But his off-handed dismissal
of Mandela is a perfect example of what's wrong with the book. There are
many things to disagree with Mandela about. But considering his 4 or 5
decade career fighting for various causes, it isn't intellecutally
honest to just dismiss him as "communist-socialist pig" without even an
explanation.

Mandela is dismissed with the same wave of
the hand that dismisses rapper Jay-Z as "nothing more than a "street
hoodlum" and rap music as encouraging a lifestyle that is "depraved."
Dr. Leonard Jeffries, who hasn't been drawing controversy to himself
since the early 1990s, is an Afrocentrist professor and professional
racist." Maxine Waters, who is pictured on the cover but doesn't get her
own chapter in the book, is a "professional agitator." Diane Watson, a
member of the Oakland School Board that approved the use of Ebonics in
1997, is accused by Peterson of being in the same league as other black
leaders trying to "control black people" for "their personal gain." Even
movie director Spike Lee gets added to the mix, denounced as a "famous
black racist" who, like Farrakhan, is a "black racist leader" who
spreads falsehoods. Since when has movie director Spike Lee been
recognized as a leader? Admittedly, I haven't paid for a Spike Lee movie
ever since I heard him say that he doesn't care what people say about
him, as long as they pay to see his movies. But I doubt that he has
somehow become a leader because of his movies.

In a
way, Peterson does what he accuses the media and whites of
doing--turning anyone black and liberal who speaks into a microphone or
on a street corner into a leader. What is it that Spike Lee has done
that would make anyone think that he is a leader?

Peterson
is probably at his best in the titles of the chapters. "Why Black Women
Are So Mean" will make a lot of not-so-mean black women quite angry.
"Instead of Reparations, How About a Ticket Back to Africa" might get
some folks to purchase tickets to wherever Peterson is so they can punch
him out. "Boycotting the NAACP" and "Al Sharpton, Riot King," are quite
good. And then of course there is, "Louis Farrakhan, American Hitler."
As bad as Farrakhan may be, can he really be called a Hitler?

Once
you've denounced someone as Hitler or a devil, what's the worst thing
you can call them when they do something else even worse?

Recall
back a few months ago Rush Limbaugh when announced that he was addicted
to pain-killers. He has been demonized by his critics over the years.
When the drug addiction was revealed, his critics tried so hard to use
it to kill his career. But they had shot their wad. There isn't much
more new they can say about him. Limbaugh The Devil had become Limbaugh
The Devil . . . With a Pill Addiction. I guess that the devil can
somehow become worse because of that. The same with Bush-haters
denouncing George W. Bush as Hitler. If he's already Hitler before the
campaign has begun, what do you call him when he does something you
don't like? And why would Hitler agree to help out immigrants who are
currently illegal? Hitler wouldn't want to make a buck off them, he'd
want them dead.

The same with Peterson's attack on
Farrakhan, who, as far as I know, hasn't killed anyone Jewish. What do
we call Farrakhan if he really does wipe out a few millions Jews,
considering that the Hitler card has already been played when Jews were
still healthy in his presence? The hyperbole from Peterson makes it hard
to takes his arguments seriously even when he is correct. All authors
probably want to be thought-provoking. But instead of nodding my head in
agreement with Peterson when I do actually agree with him, I find
myself checking my premises. How in the world can I agree with someone so bad at making his case?

Even
if everything Rev. Peterson says about black leaders is true, what
about the responsibility of blacks to ignore their siren song? Peterson
says that blacks have been lied to, but only a fool can keeping getting
fooled. Instead of looking seriously at that, black Americans are
included among Rev. Peterson's sweeping generalizations.

I
bet that black leaders WISH they had the kind of control that Peterson
believes that they have. I recall a joke I heard years ago. Two Jewish
men are reading their favorite newspapers. The first guy is reading a
Jewish paper called The Forward. His friend is reading a Nazi paper. The
guy reading The Forward begins to criticize his friend for reading
anti-Semitic trash put out by the Nazis. But the guy says that he reads
the Nazi paper to feel better about Jews. After all, he says, he can
read that Jews control the media, Hollywood, the banking industry, the
United Nations, etc.

The same is true with Peterson's
book. Black leaders who complain about the lack of unity among blacks
only need to read Peterson's book. In it they possess magical powers to
have blacks do whatever it is they want. They can lead blacks around
like sheep, telling them what to say, do, and think.

According
to Peterson, Rev. Jackson and others are "brainwashing" blacks. Blacks
are being "led around like sheep." He even asserts: "These current
leaders tell blacks how to think, whom to vote for, and how to live
their lives." Rev. Jackson and others have "put blacks into a
trance-like state." Blacks "obey blindly" the wishes and desires of Rev.
Jackson. In addition to paranoia, "blacks see racism everywhere."

His
name-calling and sweeping generalizations call into question Rev.
Peterson's other analysis, including those with blacks he has personally
worked with. His work with troubled boys has taught him that "many
black males are both lazy and irresponsible." On other another page, he
writes that the "typical black male I work with has no work ethic, has
little sense of direction in his life, is hostile towards whites and
women, has an attitude of entitlement, and has an amoral outlook on his
life." That analysis isn't that far of a jump from the rest of what he
has written. And that analysis could be correct--after all, Rev.
Peterson is discussing his work with troubled boys. But that's
what his overblown rhetoric does--I find myself questioning even
Peterson's observations about people he has worked with.

The
sweeping generalizations do pretty much what Rev. Peterson charges Rev.
Jackson and others with doing: taking away personal responsibility from
blacks. Even if Rev. Peterson is correct about everything he says,
certainly adult black Americans share some responsibility for allowing
themselves to be led around by civil rights leaders.

Peterson
writes that it is "time someone stood up to Jesse Jackson" and the
others who are "fleecing the flock instead of leading them to spiritual
and physical freedom" and that blacks must "throw off the oppression of
their civil rights leaders and learn to stand on their own." But based
on his analysis, there are two problems. One, if blacks are so easily
led, why should anyone expect them to stand up to their leaders? Two,
instead of standing up to Rev. Jackson, why not offer an alternative
vision? Rev. Jackson has been attacked by enough people that it should
be clear by now that he has a Teflon-shield. If blacks are ready to
stand up to their crooked leaders, then Peterson should be ready to
offer a clear vision. As philosophy Eric Hoffer wrote, "It is not actual
suffering but a taste of better things which excites people to revolt."
That's to say: Instead of beating up on others, or trying to convince
blacks that their leaders are lousy, why not offer something better?

Rev.
Peterson has the background that would have allowed him to offer an
alternative vision. But his name-calling and attacks in the first half
of his book make it unlikely that people will actually read through to
the second half of the book, when Rev. Peterson does begin to lay out
his mostly religious view of how black America needs to improve. After
so many exaggerated attacks, including on the very people he wants to
save, it is tough to take him seriously. He does eventually get around,
in the final chapter, to saying what he believes needs to be done. The
topics of the chapter: 1) Restore God's Order; 2) Commit to Prayer; 3)
Forgive; 4) Commit to Marriage; 5) Judge by Character, Not Color; 6)
Become Independent of Leaders; 7) Repudiate "Black Culture" 8) Embrace
Work and Entrepreneurship 9) Commit to Education; 10) Commit to True
Racial Reconciliation.

Rev. Peterson's frustration
level at the amount of respect that Farrakhan and Jackson continue to
receive from blacks is evident in the pages of his book, so much so that
I'm surprised that Peterson hasn't dropped the "e" in his first name,
so he would be called Jess instead of Jesse. Blacks supposedly are
getting hoodwinked by their own leaders. I would suggest that there are
some other reasons that the mass of civil rights leaders cited by
Peterson are still respected by blacks.

The first one
is very simple: civil rights leaders love them. I realize in some cases
that the civil rights leaders may love themselves more than they love
blacks. But the point is that blacks know that Farrakhan, Jackson, or
lesser known leaders will be there when they are needed. At least, that
was how I explained it when I was in South Korea in 1995 as the Million
Man March was taking place. I seriously thought about flying from South
Korea to participate in the March. (By the way, Peterson dismisses the
March, saying that he "watched as hundreds of thousands of weak black
men" attended it.)

Asked by an editor in South Korea to
write about the March, I wrote a piece called "The Wrath of Farrakhan"
trying to explain why Farrakhan remained so popular among blacks despite
the controversies surrounding him. After all, after three decades of
"Great Society" programs, civil rights laws, forced busing, affirmative
action, and endless discussions about race, it had come to an all-black
Million Man March being led by someone accused of being bigoted,
anti-Semitic, homophobic, sexist, and racial separatist? I speculated
that there were two main reasons, and the first one was very simple: he
loves them.

When a group is looking to solve serious
problems, I wrote, I suspect that the members will turn to people who
love them first and foremost. This may explain why Malcolm X,
Farrakhan's predecessor at the Nation of Islam, has in many ways
eclipsed Martin Luther King. Whereas Dr. King urged blacks to love all
people, Malcolm X told blacks that they needed to love themselves first.
At a time most blacks feared defying whites, Malcolm X boldly responded
to stereotypes of blacks by calling whites "blue-eyed devils." Instead
of turning the other cheek, as Dr. King counseled, Malcolm X said that
blacks needed to seize their rights "by any means necessary." One of
Malcolm's favorite jokes was: "What do you call a Negro with a Ph.D.?"
Answer: Nigger. In other words, you're always black in white eyes, and
I'm always with you. Or, as I heard in South Korea: Who can spit in the
eye of a man who is smiling at you?

On many occasions, I
see brotherly love expressed among black men that might seem strange.
The embrace that comes with the handshake. If you listen to black talk
radio, you'll hear something very strange: black adults, especially men,
telling each other, "I love you," as the caller or guest hangs up the
phone. I can sense that they really feel that they are in a struggle and
they are coming together, even when they are just yakking on the radio.
I sense that black leaders have tapped into that. But they don't have
to worry because their critics don't listen to them. They don't hear
Jesse Jackson calling into black radio shows, the big time celebrity
chatting away with callers who may not be able to pay their bills. And
Jackson's critics don't hear him telling the callers and the hosts, "luv
ya."

I suspect it is that love of black people that
even explains why the Nation of Islam has shown willingness to embrace
Michael Jackson.

A second reason many blacks continue
to defend leaders like Rev. Jackson and Farrakhan is their message of
self-help. In many cases, I know, it is just a message of
self-help, without any real follow-up action. But in many cases, the
self-help is a chance to poke whitey in the eye. The Million Man March
was a resounding repudiation of big government. "We're not coming to beg
Washington," Farrakhan said before the march. "Our day of begging white
folk to do for us what we could do for ourselves is over." Whereas Dr.
King asked blacks to find the good even in their oppressors, Farrakhan
tells blacks to observe the devastating results of the "Great Society."
The percentage of black families with two-parent households decreased
from 78 percent in the 1960s to 40 percent by 1990. Black illegitimacy,
which officially stood at 17 percent, is well above 70 percent. Black
neighborhoods, relatively safe until the 1960s, are now rife with
violence and crime.

That may even be a reason that
Farrakhan had started to eclipse Jackson. Whereas Jackson is still
holding his hand out, asking for more welfare and programs, Farrakhan
has given that same system the finger. To be clear, I do believe that
Rev. Jackson and some of the other leaders that Peterson mentions spend
too much time trying to shake down government. If the government weren't
there with promises of handouts, it is possible that someone like Al
Sharpton would conclude that he could best help blacks by opening a rib
joint in Harlem instead of running for president.

A
third reason that I would say black leaders continue to enjoy respect
from blacks, even when they don't agree with them, has to do with the
protest I was attending: Jesse brings cameras. The other leaders of the
protest, try as they might, couldn't get cameras. Joe Madison
even talked about the boycott on his radio show several times. I don't
say that as a fan of his. He, his callers and his guests have denounced
me on several occasions, and after the boycott, we had an on-air
knock-down, drag-'em out fight, and then after his producer hung up on
me, he, his guest, and his callers talked about me for much of the next
hour.

But think about it this way: You feel that you've
been wronged; in most cases, you are not going to get cameras to
highlight your problem; in many cases, you may not even know to whom you
should turn. And in walks Jesse, with cameras in close pursuit. Your
problem may become a national issue. Not only do you have media people
asking you about the issue, but you may even end up a footnote in a book
written by a conservative!

Instead of having magical
powers to get blacks to do what they want, I suspect that the black
leaders denounced in Peterson's book have the smarts to get in front of a
protest. Instead of guiding the crowd, they figure out which crowd is
most likely to hang with them. The same may be true of their
relationship with the media. I agree with those who say that black
leaders often have the wrong focus. Instead of dealing with tough
issues, they'll rush to cases with cameras. The demand for dramatic
confrontations may just result in such scenes being supplied. And one
thing I wonder about people who say that black leaders have the wrong
focus: do you really want Jesse Jackson or Maxine Waters focusing more
of their energies on trying to fix education in the country? Perhaps
education is better off with them rushing off to pointless protests.

There
are some complexities in the relationship between black leaders and
blacks that make it silly to just dismiss it all as "fleecing the
flock." Peterson and others can say that blacks have been lied to, but
there are others offering alternative visions as well as telling "the
truth." Black adults can't be blameless. We can't just say that Jesse is
telling lies and pointing to the white man like a crooked card dealer
trying to distract us as she shuffles the cards. If blacks had been
locked away in rooms without TVs, radio, newspapers, or books, then
perhaps it could make sense to say black leaders are controlling them
and telling them what to do and say, as Peterson says.

I
even see the push for unity among many black Republicans I know. Just
last night I attended a gathering of black Republicans in northern
Virginia. I told them that I'm not a Republican, but they invited me
anyway, I guess because they were looking for honest feedback. Or it may
be that they are desperate enough that they must recruit me.

During
the meeting, as we talked about which direction the organization they
are talking about should take if formed, one member kept saying, "We've
got to build ourselves." He kept repeating the phrase. Finally, as he
was talking, I took out a sheet of paper and wrote, "Build Ourselves" in
large letters, and then held it up everytime he started to say it. I
got a laugh out of it, including from him, but the point was clear:
blacks have got to do some things on their own.

That
message isn't that far removed from what Farrakhan, Jackson, Waters, and
Sharpton say, at least in theory. Of course their actions may be
different, with Jackson, Waters and Sharpton then demanding that
Congress set up a commission, whereas the black Republicans head out to
raise money. Jackson, Farrakhan and others no doubt engage in the same
overblown rhetoric that Peterson does, with the result that all of their
good works are easily ignored. And that is exactly what is happening
with Peterson, who is making more of a career off his civil rights
bashing than with his work helping troubled boys.

Complexities
aren't addressed in Peterson's book. Instead, he goes for the
predictable points and gags. Instead of calling his book "Scam,"
Peterson should have called it, "Yo Momma!" That's about as complex as
he gets.